Surrender of a Regulated Tenancy

clutton_2

i had not realised you were so far away....

Brb

The horrid part of my mind does think that it's the niece thinking she can get her hands on a regulated tenancy I'd not mind one of those I have to admit!! haha. Just about the worst agreement possible for a LL really.

All I know of regulated tenancies is cheap rent and can't get booted out. Could you allow Uncle to sub-let a room to Niece and they draw up a lodger agreement between themselves ? LHA bods see lodger agreements all the time surely.

N79

theartfullodger wrote: »

I believe old regulated tenants who have subsequently taken ASTs have been able to regain the old regulated rights in some cases, albeit usually when the LL was trying to pull a fast one.

Tread carefully....

I know. Hence the posting (on top of my formal legal advice) to see if "normal" people thought that I was pulling a fast one.

N79

Brb wrote: »

The horrid part of my mind does think that it's the niece thinking she can get her hands on a regulated tenancy I'd not mind one of those I have to admit!! haha. Just about the worst agreement possible for a LL really.

Indeed!

All I know of regulated tenancies is cheap rent and can't get booted out.

It is possible to evict regulated tenants but only in very specific circumstances. The only compulsory grounds relate to property which is owned by retiring Armed Forces or Clergy. Rent arrears, even if unpaid for years, is not a mandatory reason for eviction - hence the massive security of tenure.

Could you allow Uncle to sub-let a room to Niece and they draw up a lodger agreement between themselves ? LHA bods see lodger agreements all the time surely.

I could not stop them if they want to do this, I have no way of proving an "anti-sublet" clause, assuming one even exists which it may never have (original tenancy agreement was lost long before I became the LL), and unlike Assured and Assured Shorthold Tenancies there is no implied term laid down by statute banning subletting without permission. I guess the downside for them is that sub-Ts do no succeed to the tenancy on the death of the head T!

N79

clutton wrote: »

i had not realised you were so far away....

Indeed.

As a general update, (and knowing that you are as nosy as I am) an appointment has been made with the T for Friday to discuss the matter with them, explain the downside and to state that it will be a condition of changing the tenancy that they get independent legal advice.

If they take a new tenancy then I think I will treat myself!

N79

An update as promised.

The niece has moved in partially as a carer and partially because they were evicted from their previous property for not paying the rent! (normally this would mean I would never offer them a tenancy but I think I will make an exception in this case if they go ahead). The reason for wanting niece's name on the tenancy is, according to them, benefits related (but my staff think that the niece also has false notions about succession ie that they will inherit the regulated tenancy - when in fact they would inherit an assured tenancy with the rent rise that would go with this).

It was again explained to them that the T could offer a licence to occupy (lodger agreement) to the niece but apparantly the council has told them that renting from relatives is not allowed for housing benefit claims. Hence their request for a new tenancy agreement.

It was explained to them what a new tenancy agreement would mean and they were given the new rent. They were also told that they would be required to get independant legal advice and they were gaven a form for their solicitor to sign to confirm that they have received advice.

The T is going to think about what they wish to do so for now the cork is staying in the champagne bottle.

Thanks for all the comments.

clutton_2

sounds like you have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's - do let us know what they decide to do.

Brb

I find it bizarre that they wouldn't allow a claim for HB/LHA as it's as far away from a contrived tenancy as you can get really whilst maintaining original T's regulated tenancy. Go figure!

Good news for you though fingers crossed for you.

(Still want one of those regulated tenancy though haha).

sonastin

I think the fact that you haven't snatched their hands off the minute they suggested a new tenancy pretty much confirms that you haven't taken advantage of them. Short of insisting that they stay on the regulated tenancy I don't think that there is any more you can do. It would be nice for your sake if they decide to go ahead with this plan!

N79

I've just discovered the multi quote function!

clutton wrote: »

sounds like you have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's - do let us know what they decide to do.

OK nosey:D

Brb wrote: »

I find it bizarre that they wouldn't allow a claim for HB/LHA as it's as far away from a contrived tenancy as you can get really whilst maintaining original T's regulated tenancy. Go figure!

Good news for you though fingers crossed for you.

(Still want one of those regulated tenancy though haha).

I suspect that they asked the council the wrong question or the council got it wrong but its not my business to advise them!

sonastin wrote: »

I think the fact that you haven't snatched their hands off the minute they suggested a new tenancy pretty much confirms that you haven't taken advantage of them. Short of insisting that they stay on the regulated tenancy I don't think that there is any more you can do. It would be nice for your sake if they decide to go ahead with this plan!

I don't mind if they don't - I have never banked on getting possession of this property back before the T dies - anything else is a bonus!